Sunday, December 20, 2009

I can't devote the time necessary now to do a full write-up of everything the obomination has been up to in his war against freedom (everything from increasing government spying of the people, using strong-arm tactics and threats against opponents to try to silence all opposition, make the governent involved in nearly everything...for starters), or all the recent instances of police abusing people or murdering people, but I will say this: we need drastic measures taken to restore freedom in this world. If Ron Paul's attempts to restore freedom with a grassroots method fails, we are left with two options: either a state secedes and we make at least a portion of this country free, or, the second option, create a new country. Now, this isn't the 1800's or earlier when there was a considerable amount of land available for settlement. About all we have today for unclaimed land is Antarctica, hardly a hospitable place. This would not be entirely impossible, some portions of Antarctica have a climate not too unlike Barrow, Alaska. Growing anything would be nearly impossible, and there would be only the sea to sustain a country. Contrary to what animal rights activists assert, many whale species are not endangered and would provide many resources including whale oil, meat, bone, etc., for use in addition to fish. It would of necessity be a very primitive existence.

Now the other option if forming a new country should become necessary combines secession with forming a new country, by finding suitable land that is in a state of anarchy with no true government authority in place any longer, and sparsely if at all populated. This would be a very risky, dangerous mission, given the violence throughout the undeveloped world.

It would take a considerable amount of money to do anything of this sort, obviously, to fund transportation, arm the settlers for security, provide food and other supplies, etc.. The tyrants of the world will of course want to crush an attempt by people at freedom but, that must not dissuade freedom-lovers from seeking it. I was inspired by a mention of micronations on a forum. This could be made a reality should events in the United States turn for the worst in the next several years or decades. The United States is not a lost cause as of yet so do not give up hope in improving the country our ancestors created, including, one of my ancestors whose signature as a delegate from NH is on the Constitution.

Signed,

First President and Founding Father of the Antarctic Republic (location: Antarctica), and any other country or territory at any time controlled by the Antarctic Republic.

Saturday, December 5, 2009

Since I posted. I've been meaning to post commentary on some of the terrible stuff obama has been up to, my garden, and such, but haven't gotten around to it. Posting more will have to wait longer but I'll say this: to all the scumbag tyrants of the world, I am still watching your every tyrannical move, you do not go unnoticed. You will sneak nothing past me in the middle of the night or buried in 2,000 pages.

Friday, March 27, 2009

Obama's National Service Bill appears to have passed. In it are such "gems" as the following, stripping people of their civil rights:

SEC. 1304. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES AND INELIGIBLE ORGANIZATIONS.Section 125 (42U.S.C. 12575) is amended to read as follows: `SEC. 125. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIESAND INELIGIBLE ORGANIZATIONS.(a) Prohibited Activities- A participant in anapproved national service position under this subtitle may not engage in thefollowing activities:...(2) Organizing or engaging in protests, petitions,boycotts, or strikes.(5) Engaging in partisan political activities, or otheractivities designed to influence the outcome of an election to any publicoffice.(7) Engaging in religious instruction, conducting worship services,providing instruction as part of a program that includes mandatory religiousinstruction or worship, constructing or operating facilities devoted toreligious instruction or worship, maintaining facilities primarily or inherentlydevoted to religious instruction or worship, or engaging in any form ofreligious proselytization.(10) Such other activities as the Corporation mayprohibit.

As written it appears to be voluntary but there is a section that states:

Section 6104, subsection B

(3) Whether there is an appropriate role for Federal, State, and localgovernments in overcoming the issues that deter volunteerism and nationalservice and, if appropriate, how to expand the relationships and partnershipsbetween different levels of government in promoting volunteerism and nationalservice.(4) Whether existing databases are effective in matching communityneeds to would-be volunteers and service providers.(5) The effect on theNation, on those who serve, and on the families of those who serve, if allindividuals in the United States were expected to perform national service orwere required to perform a certain amount of national service.(6) Whether aworkable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able youngpeople could be developed, and how such a requirement could be implemented in amanner that would strengthen the social fabric of the Nation and overcome civicchallenges by bringing together people from diverse economic, ethnic, andeducational backgrounds.(7) The need for a public service academy, a 4-yearinstitution that offers a federally funded undergraduate education with a focuson training future public sector leaders.(8) The means to develop awarenessof national service and volunteer opportunities at a young age by creating,expanding, and promoting service options for elementary and secondary schoolstudents, through service learning or other means, and by raising awareness ofexisting incentives.(9) The effectiveness of establishing a trainingprogram on college campuses to recruit and educate college students for nationalservice.

Section 120 of the bill discusses the “Youth Engagement Zone Program” and states that “service learning” will be “a mandatory part of the curriculum in all of the secondary schools served by the local educational agency.”

(2) YOUTH ENGAGEMENT ZONE- The term `youth engagement zone' means the area inwhich a youth engagement zone program is carried out.`(3) YOUTH ENGAGEMENTZONE PROGRAM- The term `youth engagement zone program' means a service learningprogram in which members of an eligible partnership described in paragraph (4)collaborate to provide coordinated school-based or community-based servicelearning opportunities, to address a specific community challenge, for anincreasing percentage of out-of-school youth and secondary school studentsserved by local educational agencies where--`(A) not less than 90 percentof the students participate in service-learning activities as part of theprogram; or`(B) service-learning is a mandatory part of the curriculum inall of the secondary schools served by the local educational agency.

Some other things:

Rahm Emanuel in a speech said the following: “If you're on that no-fly list, your access to the right to bear arms is canceled, because you're not part of the American family. You don't deserve that right."

It seems a lot like the start of the brown shirts of Obama (looking for a fight? While running Obama said to supporters to get in the faces of opponents). I'm sure everyone remembers for Obama calling for a national police force, as well trained and funded as the military, under his own control. Well, this doesn't sit right to me in a free Republic.

Also, that report from MIAC on militias has supposedly been retracted due to massive outcry:

There are efforts underway by pro-liberty individuals and groups, such as Ron Paul's Campaign for Liberty, to obtain through a state equivalent of the Freedom of Information Act to obtain the sources and other information on this report. I am almost willing to wager that the report's authors used the SPLC or ADL's radical left-wing propaganda for sources.

A left-leaning federal judge granted the Brady Campaign's request for an injunction blocking the rule allowing visitors to carry guns in National Parks:

This is absurd. it was nowehere near a "last minute" rule as it was in the works for months and lobbying efforts went on for years. National Forests allow people to carry firearms in accordance with state laws. Carrying a handgun concealed has no effect on the environment (target shooting and shooting wildlife is still prohibited in National Parks). A judge single-handedly took away a right protected by the Second Amendment. It will be appealed and I do believe the anti-freedom gun grabbers will lose but in the meantime it creates a mess both for the Park Service and citizens visiting parks, and puts more lives in danger by disarming people.

Hillarly Clinton and Eric Holder are trying to argue that the drug cartels in Mexico are getting their weapons from U.S. gun stores and guns hows and that we must ban "assault weapons." Well, I truly would like to know which gun stores and gun shows are selling fully automatic firearms, grenades, anti-tank weapons and so forth over the counter, as these are the weapons being used down there not semi-automatic AR's and such. I haven't even found many Class 3 dealers who will carry grenades and certain other "destructive devices" which are strictly regulated by the National Firearms Act ($200 transfer or making tax, paperwork needing approval, background check). To think these people would buy overpriced semi-autos in the U.S. when full-autos are available cheap illegally South of the border, well, that's a poor excuse. I hope enough people see through the lies and propaganda coming from this administration.

Thursday, March 12, 2009

Below is a document that recently surfaced. It originated in MO at the MO Information Analysis Center, but was sent and then posted by a MO police officer anonymously at Infowars. http://www.mshp.dps.missouri.gov/MSHPWeb/SAC/index.html From their wbesite, they say "The Missouri Statistical Analysis Center is a unit within state government responsible for providing traffic safety and criminal justice information and research services to federal, state, and local authorities as well as Missouri citizens."

The document refers to those who are concerned about their gun rights, fear gun confiscations, fear the use of the military for police, and more, are "right-wing extremists" and "terrorists" to be on guard against. Among the warning signs of these "dangerous" people are political signs, bumper stickers, etc. of candidates Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin and Bob Barr. Displaying support for the Constitution party, the Libertarian Party and the Campaign for Liberty are signs that you may be a "rightwing extremist" militia member. They have painted with a broad brush libertarians, constitutionalists, gun rights activists, militias (most of which are not at all extremists as they portray), and other people concerned with the future of liberty in this country as extremists and terrorists. Of course they begin the document with a handful of examples of violent people and attempt to associate all militia members and by extension libertarians et. al with people like Timothy McVeigh. I apologize for the poor quality when I tried to post them here, but the following are links where you can read them more clearly:

Lest any left-wingers think they are off the hook, I would also like to remind you of this document from the FBI on "terrorists." Left-wingers are just as much suspects of "terrorism" as the person who makes frequent references to the Constitution, according to this document:

This is truly chilling but we all knew the road this country was headed down when the so-called "Patriot" Act was passed. Any of us can be declared "terrorists" simply because we don't support a police state.

Now, something else I came across yesterday was the fact that after the tragic shooting in Alabama, U.S. Army soldiers were deployed in the town, seemingly in violation of Posee Comitatus, although I am on the lookout for more confirmation of this:

Saturday, March 7, 2009

This sort of thing truly infuriates me: thug cops ignorant of the law trying to ruin a man's life. Under the FOPA (Firearm Owners' Protection Act) of 1986, a federal law, this man had every right to transport these firearms through MA from CT, since they were legal in both his starting point (CT) and his destination (ME). Of course they play the story up as though he were Osama Bin Laden, with a tiny number of common weapons and some perfectly legal body armor. The FOPA of 1986:

Title 1: State Firearms Control Assistance

Sec. 926A. Interstatetransportation of firearms

Notwithstanding any other provision of any law or anyrule or regulation of a State or any political subdivision thereof, any personwho is not otherwise prohibited by this chapter from transporting, shipping, orreceiving a firearm shall be entitled to transport a firearm for any lawfulpurpose from any place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm toany other place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm if, duringsuch transportation the firearm is unloaded, and neither the firearm nor anyammunition being transported is readily accessible or is directly accessiblefrom the passenger compartment of such transporting vehicle:Provided, That inthe case of a vehicle without a compartment separate from the driver'scompartment the firearm or ammunition shall be contained in a locked containerother than the glove compartment or console.

On top of that, even under MA state law he had a right to transport them:

Mass. General Laws

Chapter 140, Section 129C

A non-resident may possess a rifleor shotgun in Massachu setts:

1. While hunting and in possession of a validhunting license.

2. While on a firing or shooting range.

3. While traveling inor through Massachusetts if the rifle or shotgun is unloaded and enclosed in acase.

4. While at a firearms show organized by a “regularly existing guncollector’s club or association.”

5. If he or she has a license or permit topossess any firearm in his or her home state, if its licensing requirements areas stringent as those of Massachusetts, as indicated by a published list of suchstates promulgated by the colonel of state police.

The charges should have been thrown out. Instead, he needs to come up with $10,000 in bail to get out of prison. And he is facing felony charges which, if he is convicted of violating them, his life will be effectively ruined. It will harm his ability to get a job or home. He won't even be able to have a single round of ammunition again. I truly, absolutely, hate thug cops who do such tyrannical acts! I hope he gets a good lawyer and beats the thugs, and I truly wish his mother would follow the advice any lawyer will give someone: shut up, and don't talk to the police.

So he wants to strip us of our constitutional rights to do Mexico a favor. Considering Mexico's military has occasionally gone across our border with arms to protect drug smugglers, I'd say this fits the definition of treason in that he is rendering aid or comfort to our enemies. To say Mexico is our friend is a farce.

Of course, everyone knows the original "assault weapons" ban had no effect on crime. The FBI carefully studied it and found it had no effect. http://articles.latimes.com/2005/jun/28/opinion/oe-lott28 And why would it? Firstly, criminals do not obey such laws. A person intent on murder won't suddenly obey a restriction on guns. Secondly, it affected weapons used in only a very tiny percentage of crimes (simply put, most criminals don't use rifles, they use the more convenient and inexpensive handguns). Thirdly, "assault weapon" is a manufactured term that has no meaning. It is applied by anti-gun lunatics on whatever gun they find "scary" due to looks. Take a Ruger 10/22 and add some sort of folding stock, a long magazine, and suddenly, it's an "assault weapon" even though it is functionally no different than a standard wood-stocked 10/22 "hunting" gun. And let us not forget we must ban those evil bayonet lugs, look at all the driveby bayonettings! This lunacy is simply a chipping away of our rights incrementally. And of course the anti-freedom activists love the fact that it creates hundreds of complex regulations that most people won't even understand, leading perfectly harmless people to become criminals for such silly things as what kind of stock is on a gun or such.

To the filthy scumbag tyrants who wish to enslave us, I say it's time to secede. Rather nicely, several states have proposed bills asserting state sovereignty rights under the 10th Amendment. Not secession, but certainly a step towards that direction. Here is a link discussing it: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=89842

I would much prefer to see this country broken up and have some states remain free, than to see the union hold and all states become cesspools of tyranny. Urge your state representatives and senators to stand up to the federal tyrants.

Harry Reid, put down the crack pipe. You don't work for Barack Obama? We're allworking for Barack Obama.

And not a week into his presidency and the media began propaganda for a gun ban. I caught CNN pushing for it on TV because of some shooting between violent gang members in Miami. Watch for more to come, the assault on liberty is in full swing. May a state quickly secede and create a free country.

Saturday, January 10, 2009

I have long been of the opinion that cities are entirely unhealthy for people. They are unnatural, overcrowded and polluted. Such negatives must inevitably have severe consequences. And they do. Scientists are beginning to discover the consequences:

Now scientists have begun to examine how the city affects the brain, andtheresults are chastening. Just being in an urban environment, they have found,impairs our basic mental processes. After spending a few minutes on acrowdedcity street, the brain is less able to hold things in memory, andsuffers fromreduced self-control. While it's long been recognized that citylife isexhausting -- that's why Picasso left Paris -- this new researchsuggests thatcities actually dull our thinking, sometimes dramatically so.

Of course, I would prefer the city people stay in the cities, or else everyplace will be crowded.

I think the other things they miss are important: cities breed a culture of dependence wheras rural areas breed a culture of independence. In a city, a person is absolutely dependent upon others for even the basic needs of survival: food, clothing and shelter. It is virtually impossible to be self-sufficient in a city. In rural areas, obviously, one could be entirely self-sufficient if one desired to do so, because you could grow and raise all your own food, supply your own energy (wood, etc.), and even trap furbearers for clothing. Obviously this has major implications for the future of freedom: those in cities, who are not independently minded, favor more controls and governmental involvement in their lives because they believe it necessary for their well-being. Those who are independent of course will not want such interference. This is the reason why Thomas Jefferson favored having a nation of independent farmers: such a society would not want governmental interference and would contribute to keeping the country free. An urban society, however, wants the government controlling more to maintain order. Less freedom therefore. Perhaps it is not a coincidence that this country began the road to significantly less freedom and more government at the same time it became more urbanized. If this country were split along rural/urban lines into two countries, one would see that the rural areas would become the most free country, the urban areas, the least free.